legalize_stats

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description only says 'Get summary statistics,' which implies a read-only operation but gives no details about the output format, the exact statistics included, or any edge cases. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It earns a 5 for efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a simple interface (two parameters, no output schema), so a brief description could be sufficient. However, with many sibling tools and no annotations, the description does not fully elaborate on what 'summary statistics' include or how this relates to other tools, leaving some ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only adds 'optionally filtered by jurisdiction,' which reiterates the schema's optionality. It does not explain the expected format of 'country' or 'jurisdiction' (e.g., ISO codes, names) or any constraints, leaving the agent to infer from property names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('summary statistics'), and specifies the scope ('for a country') with an optional filter ('jurisdiction'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like legalize_laws or legalize_reforms, which deal with legal content rather than statistics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever summary statistics for a country are needed, with the option to narrow by jurisdiction. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.